Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1993 Planning Commission MinutesPlanning Commission • CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE Council MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) II t \ - - 1 . I kc � J . 4. 5. v 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 •ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan Jr., Sandra Smith, Stephen Peterson, Janice Berg, Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City Staff. Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, and Recorder Marva Hurst. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) #1862 THREE STAR TRUCKING 2590 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING The subdivision was reviewed as a sketch plan review at the July Planning Commission meeting. The application involves a proposal within a rural residential district requiring on -site septic testing and the assurance that there is two acres of dry buildable contiguous land within each of the lots. Each lot, with the exception of lot 8, is proposed at the minimum two acre dry contiguous with lot 4 having a .55 acre retention pond. Applicant' alternate plan shows an extension to the west through the Halson's property. Applicant's surveyor has shown a dashed line, where the 50 foot extension corridor would be located. Also, with the designation of the road, lot Ts lot line is moved further east to assure enough dry contiguous. • Mabusth noted the updated report from the engineer which should be reviewed during discussion of grading and drainage issues because there are several unanswered issues regarding the size of the retention pond in lot 4. Primary concern is that if the pond had to be increased in size, where would the additional dry buildable area come from? The only available additional dry buildable would come from lot 8. Mr. Dunwreath Peasley, 95 Hackberry Hill, asked for clarification of lot locations and raised concerns about draining to east lot line. Chairman Schroeder read aloud the letter from the engineering firm Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, dated Sept. 12, 1993. Schroeder asked Mabusth to clarify meaning of this letter. Mabusth explained that she is not able to get an accurate sizing of the pond and that Mark Gronberg would have comments and information to share regarding this issue. Gronberg explained his conversation with Shawn Gustafson of Bonestroo et al. They reviewed the numbers and the possible classifications for woods and pasture: good, fair, and poor. Gustafson had classified both wood and pasture as fair but after review he was comfortable with the numbers. They also determined that berm was actually higher than the high water mark of retention pond. There will have to be some type of erosion control at the outlet of the �J drainage structure. The swale running along the back of lots 1 through 4 will carry the water into a holding pond instead of onto the lots on Hackberry Hill. • Mabusth clarified for Peaseley how the swale would alleviate the problem of water drainage into those lots. Gronberg suggested that it's possible that the pond could be lowered to accommodate the need for a larger capacity holding pond. Schroeder asked how we would determine how that the creation of the subdivision and the berms, swale, pond is not going to make the Hackberry Hill residents worse off. Mabusth responded that the development guidelines and standards of the MCWD will assume that the condition is improved. Your current plan shows all runoff from property being directed along east lot to retention pond in northeast. Drainage from retention pond cannot be released at a greater velocity in a totally developed state than it does in an undeveloped state. All runoff from this site will be directed to northeast retention pond, and will no longer exit via Hackberry Hill. Peaseley continued to express his concerns about the drainage issues and that he feels that the proposed development may not solve the problem. Gronberg feels that the swale, berm and holding pond will alleviate the problem. Schroeder inquired about the sizing of the culvert. • Gronberg explained that it will actually be a weir ( ?) or trench with sloped sides and will be built of concrete or brick. • Peaseley asked about the trees on the Suess property. Gronberg explained that the trees will stay and the fact that the drainage easement is wider than normal. Peaseley suggested that the mound septic system may not be effective in clay and suggests hooking up to sewer and holding tanks. Peterson asked the applicant what Halson has decided to do. Applicant responded that he understood Halson wasn't interested in joining in at this time. Halson stated that his main concern was where the road would be placed if an extension is requested. And that he would join in just to place the road but not create the lots since wrong placement of the road could ruin one of his lots. Mabusth reviewed placement of the road, including describing some history of other similar roads in subdivisions such as Meyer Dairy and Golden View. She reviewed the need for the City to address the issue of an extension road. Mabusth noted staff is recommending an 2 extension to the west, and asked Planning Commission whether this property should be included for further connection to an integrated road system for the area. • Rob Seuss, Jr., will be purchasing the original homestead (lot 8) and feels that the creation of this road would pose a safety concern for the children who reside on this road and Golden View as drivers may use it as short cut. Smith asked Seuss how he feels about setting aside the outlot realizing that the road may never actually be built. Seuss feels that road should never be built and would not like to see outlot set aside for future use. Chair asked Mabusth to clarify the theory behind creating this integrated road system. Mabusth explained that it's an ability to allow people to use secondary roads, releasing the burden on main roads, dealing with future subdivisions, integrating neighborhoods. Connecting roads also provides other options of access to and from properties in case of an emergency, where one section of road may be closed. Chair asked Mabusth to address the issue of setting aside rights of way. Mabusth explained that the City has done this in other areas, i.e. Rolling Meadows and that the City doesn't ask to develop these roads but to reserve the right to do so in the future if need be. • Smith clarified further why the City wants the option to plan for road as they may be needed in the future to alleviate traffic problems. Resident Jim Huseby, 125 Golden View stated that there are 17 children residing on Golden View not including Seuss' children and that the residents live there because they don't want to live on a busy road like Watertown. He feels that even though the City doesn't intend to open the road, the fact that the City is planning for a future road is nearly the same as opening it. Resident Mike Hilbelink, 85 Golden View feels that the proposal to open a road doesn't make sense and that there doesn't seem to be a need for it. He also felt that the Commission should represent the residents preference not to create the road. Mabusth reviewed the proposed road locations. Rowlette asked how planning for the road would affect Halson's property and where would it be placed. Mabusth reviewed the options suggested by Halson's attorney. Gronberg explained where the road would be placed and suggested that another option would be to place the road between lots 5 and 6 diagonally on the lot line. 3 Peterson asked if a road is created between lots 6 and 7, would there be enough room for a house on lot 7. • Gronberg responded that if the septic was moved further up the hill, there would be room. Rowlette asked if the pond between lots 7 and 8 is serving as a holding pond. Gronberg responded that it's not contributing much as a holding pond because there is no berm and it would have to be modified. Rowlette asked if removal of that pond would increase drainage problems. Gronberg replied that it is not currently helping much as a holding pond. Resident Mike Hilbelink - is a Realtor felt that creation of the proposed road would lessen the value of properties and that the area has full access now and the road is not needed. Another resident felt that the proposed road would ruin 3 lots, 6 through 8. Schroeder asked if the road makes sense for the City over the long term and whether there are any safety concerns. Schroeder felt he can see the need for similar connections in other subdivisions but doesn't see it as much in this subdivision. Mabusth responded that the cul -de -sac is designed to handle emergency vehicles. Lindquist felt that the proposed road creates a hardship on lots 7 and 8. Rowlette felt the creation of the road would make it a seven lot subdivision. • Mabusth asked if the road is needed -- is it part of the planning for an integrated road system. Rowlette asked what might happen to Watertown should Highway 12 be on the south corridor. Would Watertown carry a lot more traffic and that maybe this proposed road would make more sense. Mike Hilbelink responds that's why this road doesn't make sense. Cited fact that Minnetonka opened some cul -de -sacs and now the residents want to reverse those actions for safety reasons. Resident asked whether Halson would have to go through subdivision procedure /expense. Mabusth explained that he doesn't have to subdivide now but needs to be part of the planning and decision process. There was some discussion about septic issues and further testing and how the possibility of the need to increase the size of the holding pond would affect a decision now. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of # 1862 for Three Star Trucking, 2590 Watertown Road, for the Preliminary Subdivision as shown without the outlot assuming that is established that the berm will handle all the runoff and keep the runoff away from Hackberry Hill and will improve the situation, that the holding pond is adequate is 4 and if not it would be a 7 lot subdivision, that the septic testing on lot 3 is completed and that we have two alternate sites, that lot 8 has a secondary test site, and approval is also subject to resolution of all issues A -H as listed in the packet. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 2. Smith felt there is is enough uncertainty about road needs in the future, Nolan added that the right of way could have been given up in the future. ( #2) #1869 SIDNEY AND BARBARA REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VACATION OF EASEMENT /CREATION OF NEW EASEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Bob Kast with BRW was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Rebers. Mabusth explained that the change in the placement of the sewer line was made in an attempt to save mature trees and get as close to Brown Road as possible while minimizing the impact on the outlot, and that the Commission is now asked to vacate the old easement and create a new easement. She also noted the engineers report asked that there would be 7.5 feet on either side of the sewer line. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of application # 1869 for Sidney and Barbara Rebers, 2080 Wayzata Boulevard, as listed which is creating the new easement and vacating the old easement with the conditions so stated. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #3) #1872 ORONO WOODLAND, INC. - PAUL PHILLIPS, 2100/2140 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS - PUBLIC HEARING . Paul Phillips was present. l� u The Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement shall be completed as a plat realizing the cumbersomeness of the legal descriptions that would be created by metes and bounds format and so it was agreed upon by all that the plat would be done. One of the steps involved in the plat is the vacation of drainage and utility easements. The shared lot lines will be redefined and the easements will be rededicated in the final plat. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan to recommend approval of application # 1872 as proposed. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #4) #1850 JAMES SPINNER, 940 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Applicants contractor was present. Mabusth explained that the application had been tabled at the August meeting so that an updated survey and hardcover inventory could be provided. In return, applicant was to review the new facts and to present plan for hardcover reductions. Existing structure is within the 0- 75' as well as much of the paved driveway and parking area. There are changed hardcover 5 calculations dealing with lakeshore setback for the new structure, garage stall will be located in the 0 -75'. There will be more permanent structure hardcover within the 0 -75'. Hardcover 4D in the 0 -75' exists at 24.29% and is now proposed at 17.8 %. This reduction is in landscape areas that were installed prior to Spinner purchasing the property. Applicant is offering to remove plastic in landscaping areas. Rowlette stated that the reduction in hardcover is accepting structural for non - structural. Nolan asked if the calculations as now stated include the plastic. Schroeder asked if the applicant had any comments. Contractor stated that applicant is also going to remove some of the sidewalk on the west side of the garage (96 s.f.). Removing concrete on the east side would cause a drainage problem, causing erosion problems that would cause the garage footing to be above frost line. He reviewed the history of the situation. Doesn't understand why it's a problem as the garage addition would be built over the existing concrete drive. Feels that removing the hardcover would erode land and cause the garage to shift. Nolan disagreed stating that he viewed the property and felt there are alternative methods to control erosion such as vegetation. Contractor felt that it would be inconvenient for applicant not to have hardcover and disagrees with Commission's view. Nolan explained that Commission would like the resident to conform with current hardcover • standards. Schroeder asked whether they had looked at other areas to remove hardcover. Contractor replied that they had. Smith asked if applicant had considered placing the addition on west side near front entry? Contractor said it would not be possible as it would block the entryway. Rowlette stated her concern is the excessive amount of concrete all around the house. Nolan asked why he says the hardcover is for drainage. Contractor explained it's because of the slope of the neighbors lot. Rowlette suggest the drainage could be accomplished with a culvert or drainage swale. Feels home is incredibly overbuilt with excessive amount of hardcover and would like to see some hardcover removed and that none of that amount is structural. Nolan asked about the eaves. • 6 Contractor explained that they will be cut on the east side, but will remain the same on the south side of garage. • Mabusth explained that the eave will still be at about 4' along the south side. West side will also be 4' eave. Schroeder stated that Commission's concern is to limit the intensification of hardcover in the 0 -75' and that the original drawing indicated that everything was outside of the 0 -75' and what is now discovered is that a considerable amount is within the 0 -75'. Schroeder explained that the Commission requested Spinner to reduce hardcover to the maximum possible and that the feeling is that it hasn't been accomplished. Lindquist stated that he would like to see the garage on the west side rather than east side. Rowlette concurs. Nolan felt there would have to be some concessions in the way of hardcover. Rowlette stated that she's not as concerned about the average lakeshore setback as much as the hardcover within the 0 -75', especially with the elevation as is causes the rainwater runoff and debris to run into the lake. Schroeder suggested issue could be tabled or voted on now. Tabling would give them opportunity to change plan. • Contractor preferred the Commission to vote on the issue. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan to recommend denial of the application for James Spinner, 940 North Arm Drive, which includes variances. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #5) #1854 TROY ANDERSON 1490 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Troy Anderson was present. Mabusth explained that applicant has already received variance approval for a side setback variance for a second story addition. One of the conditions of the approval was that there were to be certain landscaping improvements completed by a deadline. She asked applicant whether plantings are complete. Mr. Anderson stated that the trees are scheduled to be planted awaiting a new septic to be installed. The trees are on -site. Mabusth explained that applicant now proposes a 26'x26' garage to the north side of the existing residence requiring both side and rear setback variances. The existing residence is 20'6" from the lot line and the garage addition will be 16' from the side lot line. The structure will 0 7 be 44' from the rear lot line. Structure will also be placed over portions of the existing septic system so a new septic system will be installed. 0 Smith asked for clarification as to where the trees are to be planted. Mr. Anderson showed where they are located presently and stated that they would be moved to the east side of the structure. Smith asked what applicants plan is for completing the second story. Mr. Anderson explained that the only remaining improvement is siding. He explained that he did not originally apply for the variance because he didn't plan to build the garage as funds were not available. Now he has applied for financing for improvements but is required to complete the garage, siding and septic before financing will be completed. Schroeder stated that the Commission doesn't want to feel pressured to approve the application for financing reasons. He also stated that there is some concern about the length of time to complete the construction and that is a larger than normal garage. Mr. Anderson stated that the garage is oversized because there is no basement and the garage will serve as storage space. Schroeder asked if the garage were a normal size would it remove one of the setback variances. Mabusth explained that the setback variance could be minimized somewhat but that the normal 2 -stall garage is 24'. iRowlette asked had any neighbors responded? Mabusth responded that there is an unsigned letter in the packet. It was noted that applicant is removing the old driveway. Nolan raised a concern about the entrance to the garage because of the sharp turn and lack of back -out area. Mr. Anderson stated that he hadn't thought about it but that he would plan for a backout area that would have to expand to both the north and west. There are no hardcover concerns with the property. Smith asked about how long until the work is completed. Mr. Anderson stated that it is his desire to complete the work in 60 days and that work would commence as soon as he receives the permit and when he can schedule the septic work. Schroeder asked whether the Commission should tie approval of the construction of the garage to the completion of the past projects including the plantings. • 8 Mabusth responded that it could be done and has been done in other situations. Rowlette stated that she would like to see additional Arbor Vitae planted on the east and along the fence to the north since there will be some trees and vegetation lost. Applicant agreed to request. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of application # 1854 subject to additional conditions that Arbor Vitae be planted on the north side, similar to the condition imposed before, that the planting be installed prior to construction, that siding has to be completed except for the area behind the house by the garage and must be completed before staff issues the permit for the garage, that applicant work with staff to address the driveway and need for adequate backout apron to assure safety for users of private shared drive, that septic testing must be completed and old driveway must be removed within 60 days (November 20, 1993). Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #6) #1855 PAUL E. BOWMAN 3458 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Paul Boman was present. Mabusth explained applicant proposes a second story over the existing single story structure. The second floor expansion will no encroach the average lakeshore setback line. There will be an additional 2 -story structure built over an existing deck on the side where they have a 13' setback. The existing chimney at 4'8" from the side lot line will also be expanded vertically. The 2 -story addition consists of an entryway on the first floor and closet on the second floor. isPeterson commented that the only resident affected is to the east and asked if that neighbor had made any comments. Mabusth responded that no neighbors have commented. She also commented that hardcover remains at 24.8% It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of Application # 1855 for Paul E. Bowman, 3458 North Shore Drive for variance to side setback. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #7) #1856 MARK AND JENNY PRUETER 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mark and Jenny Prueter were present. Mabusth explained that applicant received approval for a rear addition of 18'x26', including a deck to the west. He received hardcover and setback approvals, and average Lakeshore setback approval for the replacement of a deck in the lakeside yard. He proposed removals within the 0 -75'by breaking out some solid concrete and replacing with pads, the cement entry patio was reduced to Tx 10'. Drainage was to be rerouted to the east lot line, collecting into an • 9 existing drainageway. Council held to the originally proposed hardcover percentage which was at 29.4 1/o. The current proposal shows a 10'x26' rear addition with a 5'x21' deck to the rear and a single story enclosed entry 6'x5'. Over that will be another 3rd story. The issues for the current review are the side setbacks, the average lakeshore setback, the hardcover excesses and now the issue of a height question. The code states that height of structure can be no more than 30' or 2 -1/2 stories. The lower level has to be classified as a full story since more than 50% is above grade. The structure is now considered a 3 -story structure per the building code. Total height is 29'6 ". Side setbacks are slightly improved, hardcover is currently proposed at 29.5 %. The applicant is now asking that the sidewalk remain in the solid configuration for ease of maintenance and the cement pad is now at 910". Mabusth stated that if this configuration is allowed there won't be a reduction in hardcover in the 0 -75' and hardcover is now at 29.5% rather than 29.4 %. Applicant commented that the walkway was 53' and the City Council suggested removal of 65 s.f. and in the current proposal reduces the walkway to 35' or 105 sq. ft. hardcover. Schroeder asked if there is a way to get the hardcover down. Mr. Prueter responded that the 9'x10' pad in the front could be reduced to 7 and 10. Schroeder said he'd want to make proposal as close to what was originally proposed. Peterson asked whether any neighbors had any concerns regarding this addition. Mabusth noted the letters from the neighbors. • Lindquist commented that house to east of applicants will be significantly taller than proposed structure. • Rowlette commented that it would be difficult to remove snow and ice on pads and that it doesn't make sense for a main walkway. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1856 subject to reducing hardcover to 29.4 %. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. ( #8) #1857 JAMES L. STINSON 2623 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Stinson was present. Applicant proposed 11.5'x18' addition to the lakeside of residence and the reinstallation of a 11.5'x21' deck adjacent to the addition. It will be placed where there is a landscaped area underlain with geotechnic fabric that wasn't recorded. The proposed improvement results in an increase in hardcover. 10 Mabusth asked applicant if any other landscape areas had geotechnic fabric. Mr. Stinson responded that all landscape areas are lined with geotechnic fabric. Mabusth stated that the fabric will have to be removed as the City of Orono considers the fabric as hardcover and the property is already at greater than 50 %. Mabusth continued that there is an average lakeshore setback encroachment of 11.5'. The house on one side is 7.5' from the lot line which requires a side setback variance for new construction. Hardcover excesses exist. The property shares a parking area. There is no hardcover in the 0 -75' area. Mabusth asked the Commission where the additional hardcover removals could come from? There have been no comments from neighbors. Rowlette commented that there is an incredible amount of hardcover on the property and she would prefer to hold it at the existing or reduce it. Mabusth stated that hardcover is proposed to increase by 59 s.f. Rowlette mentioned the proximity of homes to one another and the concern about allowing the lakeside addition to encroach into the average lakeside setback with regards to the fact that a new setback is being created which might induce neighbors to want to make the same kinds of variances or improvements closer to the lake. • Mr. Stinson brought up the point that his neighbor on the right has no window looking onto his property. Schroeder cautioned that windows could be added to that side of the neighbors home in the future. Mr. Stinson countered that the area is heavily wooded enough that there should be no concern about privacy issues. Nolan concurred with Schroeder and felt that Commission should make the effort to improve the situation and suggests that applicants review the situation. His main concern is the hardcover rather than the average lakeshore setback. Schroeder stated that he feels the lakeshore setback is a bigger concern. Mr. Stinson asked for clarification of the average lakeshore setback. Mabusth explained how the setback is created and that the big concern is with homes or additions being built closer and closer to the lake. Schroeder commented that the home 2 doors down from the subject property along with the subject property could create a new average Lakeshore setback and the neighbor between then 0 11 could then build an addition to that new average lakeshore setback without having to acquire a variance. • It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend denial of application # 1857 for James L. Stinson, 2623 Casco Point Road, for variances. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #9) #1858 JOHN AND MARLA MERIDITH 3685 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. and Mrs. Meridith were present. Applicant is proposing the installation of a 4,800 s.f. indoor riding arena requiring variances to the allowed oversized accessory structure on a property that exceeds 9 acres. It also requires a variance to the allowed total area of accessory structures on the property. Applicant is requesting a variance of 1,800 s.f. for the individual accessory structure, as well as a variance of 2,288 s.f. for the total area of all accessory structures on the property. The issue of septic has been resolved. Septic is located in the eastern pasture area. Mabusth asked the applicants to obtain a survey showing exact locations of all structures. Lindquist asked if the house is on a separate parcel? Mabusth responded that both parcels were under the same ownership and they combined both parcels when the applicants installed the barn. • Peterson asked what the height of the structure is. Mabusth responded that it would be 22' to the peak. is Peterson asked how many horses are on the property. Mrs. Meridith responded that there are 4 and possibly would be one more. Schroeder asked what the plans are for the structure - would it be a business. Mrs. Meridith responded that it would not be for business purposes but that she needed a place to train her horses that she enters in shows. She went on to explain that the structure is the minimum size possible for the safety of horses since working them in a small area is very harmful to their legs. Mrs. Mabusth submitted letters from the neighbors stating their approval of the structure. Mabusth asked what color the structure would be. Mrs. Meridith stated that it would be the same color as other buildings - beige with white trim. 12 It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of application # 1858 for John and Marla Meridith, 3685 Watertown Road for variances discussed being that the accessory structure is 4,800 s.f. instead of the allowable 3,000 s.f. Smith added that if the • property was ever subdivided, the owner would take responsibility for those structures. Also required is the updated survey, and the understanding that maximum allowable horses on this property is 7 based on the size of the land and is for personal use and not a business. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. • (#10) #1859 JEFFREY H. MUELLER 222 BEDERWOOD DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Mueller was present. Mabusth explained that the applicant seeks approval of a setback variance that would allow an accessory structure to be placed in the front of the front line of the principle structure. The structure will also require a side setback variance. The improvement involves a complete replacement of the detached garage within the street yard of the property. It will be built within the current building envelope. Mabusth asked the applicant whether he could move the structure over enough to meet the side setback. Mr. Mueller agreed that he could do that. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of application #1859 for Jeffrey H. Mueller, 222 Bederwood Drive for accessory structure built in front of the front line of the principle structure. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. ( #11) #1860 ZELMA H. MCKINNEY 3599 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. McKinney was present and accompanied by her daughter, Gayle Siegler. Mabusth explained that property is located in Navarre Heights on Livingston street. Mrs. McKinney purchased the property in May, 1962 when triplex use would have been permitted. It was always used as a rental property. There have been zoning amendments since whereby only single family residential use would be allowed. Mrs. McKinney is applying for a conditional use permit per Section 3 1. 100 of the 1975 Code. Mrs. McKinney seeks approval of two residential units; one to be owner - occupied and the other a rental apartment. The majority of neighbors that called were satisfied to hear that the property would be owner- occupied duplex and only one neighbor preferred to see the property revert to single family dwelling status. Commission members felt the property was visually appealing and if the property did revert to single family, the exterior of the structure would not be altered in anyway. 13 Mabusth reviewed the ownership pattern of the development lots of the Navarre Heyette neighborhood as follows: 12 single lots, 14 as double lots, and 1 as three combined lots. • Nolan asked how the City enforces occupancy status. Mabusth explained that the conditional use permit would be filed in the chain of title. Rowlette asked if there are other properties like this. Mabusth explained that there are some non - conforming use properties and clarified that there are similar properties in the neighborhood. Schroeder asked if there is a deadline to file this conditional use permit. Mabusth stated that she was not aware of any deadline established in the code and asked members upon their review of the pertinent section of the code if they concurred. Rowlette brought up the point that this would be a good time to revert the property to conform with current standards, getting it into the single family dwelling status. Smith asked about the pros and cons of single family vs. duplex if the property were for sale. Mabusth stated that it would be more consistent if it were zoned single family, but reiterated that there are other properties similar to this in the neighborhood. Rowlette asked about the floor plans of the units /number of bedrooms (4) as it relates to the • number of possible vehicles parked on the property. Mabusth explained that there is a two stall garage and adequate room for two car parking on the property. is Mrs. McKinney commented that there are currently two people living upstairs. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of application # 1860 for Zelma H. McKinney, 3599 Livingston Avenue recognizing the conditions for approval as set forth by staff. Vote: Ayes 6; Nays 1. Rowlette voted Nay. (#12) #1861 JEFFREY S. LEECH 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey S. Leech was present. Applicant proposes the installation of a new foundation under the existing detached garage within the street yard of the lakeshore lot. The existing garage is located within substandard street and side setbacks. There are excesses of hardcover on the property. 14 Mabusth explained that the structure is located on a severely limited lot. The required setback for a garage with the door opening toward the street is 30' and the garage is located 17" from the street lot line and 29' from travelled road. It is located on a shared driveway. The required • sideyard setback is 10' and the structure is 1'8" from the side lot line. Smith asked if the applicant considered putting the garage at the end of the shared driveway. Mabusth asked if they considered an attached structure. Mr. Leech replied that he had not considered it. Mabusth noted that a detached garage would have to be 10' from the principle structure. Nolan asked if the sidewalk would be replaced and noted that there is a drainage problem as water pools in the middle of it. Smith noted the deck in the 0 -75' and asked if the deck was there when they purchased the home. Mr. Leech replied that the deck was there when they purchased the home. Smith asked about what appears to be an erosion problem near the shoreline. Mr. Leech responded that he is addressing the issue as they can afford to make improvements. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of application #1861 • for Jeffrey S. Leech, 720 North Arm Drive as listed subject to working with staff on drainage problems. Vote: Ayes 6 Nays 1. Rowlette felt the hardcover issue should have been addressed to find ways to reduce it. • Chairman Schroeder asked for a 5 minute recess. (13) #1863 ROBERT LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Luesse was present. Mabusth explained that when the Commission originally approved the application it had several other improvements. The garage was based on a former survey which showed the garage 3' from the lot line. An updated survey shows the garage is 2'4" from the lot line. Mr. Luesse was given opportunity to start construction by off - setting the structure 8" but he opted instead to come back to the Commission with a new proposal. Peterson asked if there were any comments from the neighbor to the north. Mr. Luesse responded that he had talked with the neighbor but he did not have any concerns regarding the proposal as he originally approved an extension along the existing setback. 15 There was some discussion as to the s.f. figures in the original hardcover survey and it was discovered that some of the figures had been rounded off. • It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of application # 1863 for Robert Luesse, 3249 Casco Circle, for the amended variance application subject to the installation of a firewall. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. (#14) #1864 IRWIN JACOBS 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Jim Jenson represented Mr. Jacobs. Mabusth explained that the application involves a conditional use permit for a new caretaker residence to replace an older caretaker residence on the original 2.7 acre parcel. Mabusth explained that there were previous applications for variances for a guest house and oversized accessory structures and those applications had been approved. The structure meets the 100' lakeshore setback and that only a grade level patio is proposed within the 75 -100' setback area which is allowed by the current code. The structure will also be decreased by 349.8 s. f. Peterson asked if anyone was able to view the property. Rowlette responded that she went to the gate and the caretaker came to get her and showed her around the property. . Schroeder commented that there was a breakdown in communication and suggested that it be addressed. Peterson stated that he was not certain of whether he could vote on the property as he was denied access to the property. Mr. Jenson apologized for the breakdown in communication and said he would address it. Schroeder asked why Mr. Jacobs wanted to build the structure. Mr. Jensen replied that the existing structure is very old and in great disrepair. Schroeder asked which Commission members were able to view the property and asked whether it could be voted on now. Rowlette commented that she had no problem with the proposal. She discovered in her conversation with the caretakers that the structure doesn't even have a foundation under it - it's just a dirt floor with wood over it. Schroeder asked about the septic. is 16 Mr. Jensen said that it is in process. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval of application • #1864 for Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive for the Conditional Use permit variance to rebuild the accessory structure subject to the size of accessory structures, that the on -site septic testing will be completed for a principle and an alternate site, and that the structure can never be used as a rental. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. (# 15) # 1865 David Owen 2248 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Owen was present. Mabusth explained that applicant would like to rebuild the foundation of his garage and parking pad and improve drainage by raising the foundation 8" (water from the street rushed into his garage). Structure is located 1'+ from street lot line and doesn't meet required side setback. Mabusth asked Mr. Owen if there would be structural repairs to the garage. Mr. Owen replied that there would be some, along with retaining wall repair, slab removal and installation of safety rails. Mabusth explained that the major problem for the property owner is that in the early 50's the County took an easement for snow fencing (not right of way) at the end of his driveway. The County has advised us that they are willing to release the easement but the City of Orono needs • the right of way for Crystal Bay Road. Gerhardson has advised that the City needs only the portion of the easement defined as travelled road. The structure would then be located 10' from the street. • Peterson commented that he viewed the property the night before and saw the water rushing into the garage. Mr. Owen stated that the garage is actually lower than the street. Nolan asked what Mr. Owens plans are for the water problem and wondered if drainage wasn't addressed properly, the water would be averted onto the neighbors property. Nolan also asked if the garage door opening would remain the same. Mr. Owen stated that he would actually lift the garage and replace it on the new foundation. Nolan asked if Mr. Owen planned to clean up the concrete on the side of the garage. Mr. Owen stated that he has plans to clean up the area. Mr. Owen's intent is to get the water to drain out onto the street. He felt that the water would stay on his property though if it did drain back from the street, drainage would go around the 17 garage on the east side because of a small berm or landform between the properties. Schroeder asked if the neighbors are aware of his plans. •Mr. Owen responded that both neighbors are aware. Rowlette felt that the City has to be involved in solving the drainage problem. Peterson felt that if the foundation is built up as proposed and done right, that the water would drain back down Crystal Bay Road. Lindquist concurs. Nolan stated he would like to see some elevations to insure that the job is done right. Mr. Owen agreed. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of application # 1865 for David Owen, 2248 Shadywood Road, with the understanding the he work with the City on the elevations and drainage problem. Nolan added that he would like to see the debris beside the garage cleaned up and removed during the construction. County and City will work with applicant to see that right of way is deeded back to him. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. (#16) #1866, #1867, #1868 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD • #1866 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING #1867 VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING #1868 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING • Mrs. Jundt was present. Mabusth explained that these are actually three separate applications. #1866 deals with a caretaker apartment on the second floor of the main house. Current owners propose major repair and alteration of original caretaker unit. Access comes via a hallway that is entranced from the interior of the house and also from a secondary access via the lower level of the garage. Mabusth asked for clarification of an opening to another bedroom area. Mrs. Jundt explained that their intent is to have a doorway punched out but not open in the event they want to open the rooms to one another in the future. Peterson asked what would be the primary access. Mrs. Jundt explained that they would have private access through the garage as well as through the house. 18 Peterson asked why there needs to be two entrances. Mrs. Jundt responded that they want the caretakers to have their own private entrance. •Schroeder explained that the issue for the City is that a private entrance might indicate an intent to rent the unit and asked whether they planned to rent out the unit. He commented that one way to prohibit rental of the unit would be to have the principle access through the main house. Mrs. Jundt replied that her intent is not to rent the unit but to have a caretaker living on site. Peterson commented that the two stairways leading from the lower level seem so close that it didn't seem necessary to have an additional access. The architect for the project explained the stairs seem close on the second floor level but that they are not close at the bottom. Mabusth noted that the second stairway serves as access from the garage to the kitchen and eventually to the second floor. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend for approval of application # 1866 for James and Joann Jundt for conditional use permit required for caretaker apartment within the second floor of the main house as proposed. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. #1867 Mrs. Jundt was concerned about the hardship statement that involves the boathouse and steps. See Exhibit K, # 1. Their plans are not to abandon the boathouse and steps as the property has historical significance and they want to assess all factors before making a decision on lakeshore improvements. Rowlette explained that it has been the City's intent to remove non - conforming structures within the 0 -75' that begin to deteriorate and that applicant would have to work closely with the City on any repair or changes to this structure. Mabusth explained that the stone steps near the boathouse are figured in the hardcover calculations. Architect clarified the size of the deck as well as the purpose of the deck. It will be used for storage of dock sections, and not for sitting or viewing. Mabusth stated that there are no particular regulation regarding the light on the deck. Lindquist asked what it would look like. Architect stated that it would be a decorative, low intensity type light fixture. 19 Rowlette asked if the dock would connect to the deck. isArchitect stated that it would have to be connected. Schroeder asked what is normally done with dock sections when they are pulled from the water. Architect replied that they are usually laid on the lawn. Schroeder stated that his concern is having a (narrowly defined) structure in the 0 -75' area. However, he felt the proposed structure was reasonable for dock storage. Schroeder noted that the concern with the structure is that if it is used as sitting or viewing area, there may be many such requests for similar structures. Mrs. Jundt commented that the deck was planned based on the size of the dock. Rowlette stated concern about the fact that there are three stairways. Mabusth noted the code does not limit a property to a specific number of decks. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of application # 1867 for James and Joann Jundt for variance of a structure within the 0 -75' and hardcover within the 0 -75', repair of existing accessory structures within the 0 -75' will require approval, and that deck be used only for dock storage. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. #1868 Mabusth explained that the application involves a conditional use permit for guest house with P pp p � a caretaker apartment and greenhouse as well as residential garages. The applicant is not proposing any improvements but staff felt it would be appropriate to advise the applicant to obtain a conditional use permit. It is an oversized accessory structure and does not meet the required side setback. Schroeder asked where we stand with septic. Mabusth explained that the property would be subject to new interim ordinance because the City is evaluating the triggers for when someone has to replace a septic system because of the separation problems with issuance of a building permit for improvements. On -site septic inspections will continue. Residents have two years to repair them. This is a non - conforming septic system. Schroeder asked if a decision made on this application would affect the septic issue in any way. Mabusth responded that it would not because this matter has been covered under the permit for this property. • 20 LJ It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval for application # 1868 for James and Joann Jundt for conditional use permit for guest house and caretaker apartment and variance to area of oversized accessory structure. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. It was moved by Berg, seco n ded by Rowlette, to delete the phrase "will be abandoned" from the hardship statement. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. ( #17) #1870 STEPHEN AND RANDI CARLSON 1185 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Stephen Carlson was present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes a single stall garage addition to the existing principle structure that will be located in a sub - standard street setback. The single stall garage has a lower level. The floor is collapsing and is very unsafe. Mabusth asked if this would be a double -level garage. Mr. Carlson responded that his intent is to maintain the lower level garage in the back to use as storage but that addition part would be filled in with dirt. Rowlette noted that there are no hardcover issues. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of application # 1870 for Stephen and Randi Carlson for variance as listed. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#18) #1871 TAYLOR/LAUER HOMES 1725 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO LONGER NEEDED. ( #19) #1873 JACK EDWARDS 1340 REST POINT CIRCLE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Jack Edwards was present. Mabusth explained that applicant proposes a 4'x12' addition to the garage. He's also putting a lower level 8'x11' storage addition to his existing workshop area. Because his doors face away from the street he needs only a 10' setback. Hardcover is reduced by 222 s. f. in the 0 -75' and 498 s.f. in the 75 -250'. Nolan discussed the issue of drainage and suggested that Mr. Edwards present a grading proposal for the north side between the garage and the house. Mabusth noted that there is a City drainage culvert that outlets on Mr. Edwards property. 21 Mr. Edwards stated that he is willing to work with the City on the drainage issue. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of application #1873 for Jack Edwards, 1340 Rest Point Circle as proposed and that Mr. Edwards be given the opportunity to work with the City on the drainage issues. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ( #20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Nolan reported the Council approved everything and that the only issue of any controversy was Seiss - shared driveway. ( #21) OTHER ISSUES Chair Schroeder commented that we are working toward a collective tour. He encourages each member to drive through the marinas. There are seven of them and it can be done rather quickly. ( #21) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Schroeder noted that Lindquist's absence was not noted on the minutes. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Schroeder to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes 7, nays 0. ( #22) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING • Rowlette volunteered to attend the September 27, 1993 Council meeting. • Lindquist volunteered to attend the October 11, 1993 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. 22 Charles Schroeder, Chairperson